On 10/04/2016 FLEET LOGIC, LLC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against TWENTY6 LETTERS CORP. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LORI ANN FOURNIER, MARGARET MILLER BERNAL and PAUL BRUGUERA. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
****5842
10/04/2016
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Norwalk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
LORI ANN FOURNIER
MARGARET MILLER BERNAL
PAUL BRUGUERA
FLEET LOGIC LLC
VELOCITY TRUCK RENTAL & LEASING
TWENTY6 LETTERS CORP. A NEVADA CORP.
CHILDRESS TIM AN INDIVIDUAL
CHILDRESS PAIGE
CHILDRESS TIM
CHILDRESS PAIGE AN INDIVIDUAL
CHILDRESS AN INDIVIDUAL TIM
CHILDRESS AN INDIVIDUAL PAIGE
THE VANDERPOOL LAW FIRM
TOVAR HEATHER ANN
VANDERPOOL DOUGLAS BRENT
WILLIAM Y. SUNG
COOPER MICHAEL H
CLIFFORD JOHN STEWART
8/15/2019: Motion to Quash - MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS
12/16/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER)
2/6/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (MSC))
11/9/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF HEATHER A. TOVAR IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION
11/24/2020: Notice of Ruling
6/19/2019: Notice of Ruling
12/29/2016: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: DEFAULT JUDGMENT
12/29/2016: Statement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death)
1/17/2017: Notice of Entry of Judgment
2/21/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: COST BILL AFTER JUDGMENT
3/1/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: OBJECTION DOCUMENT FILED
8/2/2018: Notice of Motion -
8/3/2018: Motion to Compel -
8/3/2018: Motion to Compel -
8/3/2018: Motion to Compel -
9/13/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: EX-PARTE APPLICATION
9/13/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: OPPOSITION
10/26/2018: Opposition - Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories
Hearing06/09/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department F at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Jury Trial
Hearing05/26/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department F at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Final Status Conference
Docketat 09:30 AM in Department F; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department C; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (For Production Set One) - Held
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department C; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (to Special Interrogatories, Set One) - Held
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department C; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (to Form Interrogatories Set One) - Held
DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by FLEET LOGIC, LLC (Plaintiff)
DocketCourt Order/Ruling (Hearing 11-24-20); Filed by Clerk
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses For P...)); Filed by Clerk
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated
DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl (BY SUBSTITUTED SERVICE ON 10/11/16 Affadavit of Reasonable Diligence attached ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl (BY PERSONAL SERVICE ON 10/11/16 ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by FLEET LOGIC, LLC (Plaintiff)
DocketNotice-Case Management Conference; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by FLEET LOGIC, LLC (Plaintiff)
DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by VELOCITY TRUCK RENTAL & LEASING (Legacy Party); FLEET LOGIC, LLC (Plaintiff)
DocketSummons; Filed by Plaintiff
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Plaintiff
Case Number: VC065842 Hearing Date: November 24, 2020 Dept: C
FLEET LOGIC, LLC v. TWENTY6 LETTERS CORP., et al.
CASE NO.: VC065842
HEARING: 11/24/20 @ 1:30 PM
JUDGE: JOHN A. TORRIBIO
#3
TENTATIVE ORDER
Defendants Tim and Paige Childress’s motions to compel further discovery are MOOT. Defendants partially withdrew the substantive part of the motions.
Request for sanctions is DENIED.
Plaintiff to give NOTICE.
Defendants Tim and Paige Childress move to compel further responses to discovery. On 10/6/20, Defendants partially withdrew their motions because supplemental responses were provided. However, Defendants retain their request for sanctions.
The court finds that sanctions are not warranted in this instance because Plaintiff believed that discovery cut-off was 2/24/20. At that time, trial was set for 3/23/20, and discovery cut-off was 2/24/20.
On 2/24/20, the court granted Defendants’ request to continue trial “as set by Dept. F” and extended discovery to run with the continued trial date. However, at that time, Dept. F had not set a new trial date.
Due to Covid-19 and the court shut down, the trial date was not reset by Dept. F until 4/21/20, and discovery was then ordered to coincide with the new trial date.
Plaintiff thereafter served supplemental responses. In opposition, Plaintiff also requests sanctions against Defendants.
The court finds that substantial justification exists on both sides. At the time Plaintiff’s responses were due, it was unclear when discovery cut-off would take place. Defendants also had substantial justification because the court granted their request to continue trial and extend discovery cut-off, but due to extenuating circumstances, did not set a new trial date until 4/21/20.
Both parties’ requests for sanctions are DENIED.
Case Number: VC065842 Hearing Date: December 10, 2019 Dept: SEC
FLEET LOGIC, LLC v. TWENTY6 LETTERS CORP., et al.
CASE NO.: VC065842
JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES
HEARING: 12/10/19
#10
TENTATIVE ORDER
Defendants Tim and Paige Childress’s motion to set aside and vacate ruling re sanctions is DENIED.
Plaintiff to give NOTICE.
Defendants Tim and Paige Childress move to set aside and vacate the ruling re sanctions pursuant to CCP 473.
The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (CCP 473(b).)
Defendants contend that their previous motions to quash were not made in bad faith and that the court “completely disregarded the operative motion itself.” (Motion, 4:25.) Defendants are essentially disagreeing with the court’s prior order. Such does not establish mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. Further, even if this motion is construed as a motion for reconsideration, the motion would be untimely. CCP 1008 requires that the motion be filed within 10 days of the order. The Order was issued on 10/10/19, but the motion was not filed until 11/8/19.
Further, Defendants contend the court denied their motions based solely on the lack of a separate statement. However, as this court stated in its 10/10/19 Order, Defendants did not attach the subpoenas at issue, and the court had no way of knowing what documents are being demanded or objected to. For this reason, the motions were denied. Defense counsel appeared at the hearing and failed to address this court's concerns.
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases